This actually harks back to the Planetary Society's beginnings. In its early years, the only form of manned space exploration it favoured was an (international) Mars expedition. All other ideas that involved humans in space were counterproductive and undesirable, to hear the Planetary Society tell it.

This obsession with Mars was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. However, some of the reasons advanced against it strike me as poor - sufficiently poor that they weaken attempts to argue for a more systematic and balanced space effort.

An exclusive focus on Mars does have one thing going for it. If you believe that any resumption of manned space exploration will inevitably end the way Apollo did, with follow-on programmes cancelled and flight-ready hardware consigned to museums as soon as the programme's first objective is met, then choosing the most interesting single destination makes sense.

However . . . haven't we learned anything from doing that once? To me, it makes far more sense to try to build a programme that won't crash and burn as soon as it scores its first goal. That means systematically building capabilities and infrastructure, and doing first things first even if they aren't the most exciting parts.

Whether going to the Moon, in itself, builds capabilities that will be directly needed for Mars is more debatable, however. The two environments are too different; too much of the hardware will have to be different too.

Capabilities for in-orbit assembly of large expeditions would be helpful, but current US ideas for the return to the Moon explicitly avoid orbital assembly. The reasons for this seem to me to be weak and mistaken. Supplying fuel for a Mars expedition from the lunar surface is often suggested, but it's hard to make it pay off - Moon bases are expensive, and just buying more rockets to launch fuel from Earth is relatively cheap.

Some argue that although the hardware and infrastructure won't transfer directly, the experience will. Maybe, somewhat. But lunar experience won't deal with many of the most important issues for a Mars expedition.

For example, NASA's Mission Control bureaucracy will face a painful culture change for Mars, because Mission Control will have to become Mission Support. The communications delays between Earth and Mars can be half an hour or more, so the people on the ground can't participate minute by minute in Mars surface activities. The crew on the surface will have to make their own decisions and deal with their own crises. Even much of the equipment monitoring now done from the ground will have to be done on Mars instead.

Could we rehearse this on the Moon? Certainly we could. But will we? The communications delay for the Moon is only a few seconds, and so the temptation for Mission Control to continue its micro-managing ways will probably prove irresistible.

By far the most important reason to go back to the Moon first is simply that we've barely started exploring it! The Moon may not be quite as appealing as Mars, but it's still a complex and poorly understood world, with many questions still unanswered. The more closely we look, the more strangeness we find. (Indeed, one area where lunar experience might be useful later is for getting some idea of what's needed to thoroughly understand a new world. It's likely to take more time and effort than we now expect.)

In the same way that the Moon was the logical first step, setting up shop there permanently is the logical next step. If our goal is systematic exploration and development of the solar system, rather than Cold-War-style "space spectaculars", there is no reason to postpone it, and every reason to do it before venturing farther afield.

Finally, in a similar vein, going back to the Moon will also establish a useful pattern of patient effort towards long-term goals. If nothing else, claiming that Apollo was enough attention to the Moon amounts to claiming that six brief visits are sufficient to explore a whole world - surely not the sort of precedent the Mars enthusiasts want to set!

I could not agree more. Mars is a gem of a planet, not much going on, close... but technologically speaking ... DIFFICULT to land on, send gear to and also difficult to orbit. (our planets record of visiting that planet isn't to great, we tend to blow stuff up on it and or bounce off it)

The Moon, is logical in pushing man's footprint out to the stars. it's closer and therefore easier to attain.

The worlds leading nations are in a space race, it's quite evident. China, India, Japan, Russia, and the USA have or are going to be doing something lunar oriented in the near future.

The ISS is a great example of the way that any government expidition should be handled. Major nations do the major lifting and construction, while other nations provide parts and tech and people power.

Either way you look at human development, our destination is the stars, so we might as well start doign it. It's not like the Earth is going to be able to support the populations of the 100 to 200 year outlook. (tripple what we have now) it makes logical sense to go outward and the first step in that venture is to the moon.

Mars is next.

By Athena
on November 18, 2008 8:29 PM

The moon is a next logical stepping stone.

If we can't create a colony or station on the moon, what hope do we have of doing so on Mars? Mars has water...that's 1 possibility. If it has enough water, then the water can be used for heating and/or cooling (mostly heating). Also, I'm not sure, but isn't several feet of water a reasonably good shield against space radiation? I seem to remember one plan for a ship using water ballast in the walls as a shield against cosmic ray damage.

OTOH, would the moon have any mineral sources worth mining that could be made into structures? We should have more solar energy available on the moon than on mars (distance & lack of atmosphere).

Without wind resistance to worry about on launch, wouldn't it be easer to build an electrically powered launch device (rail-gun) to launch materials out of the earth-moon gravity well on their way to a target?

Also, without wind resistance, would building a 'space elevator' be more practical on the moon, possibly making it more suitable as a cargo staging -- perhaps manufacturing location? Especially if there are useful minerals (though I guess earth got a disproportionate percentage of the heavier elements when the moon was thought to have split off from what was mostly the earth's crust at the time?)

A main issue that needs to be solved getting things out of earth's gravity well at a lower cost (space elevator seems most likely choice). With air friction,
a rail-gun on earth to launch into orbit would likely be unusable for humans due to the acceleration involved, but don't know for sure. Would the stress on a human body, of acceleration be reduced if human were suspended, floating in liquid (like water?)
Since humans float, it seems the net forces on the human be to float 'higher' in a liquid tank. But I have no idea how such accelerations would affect individual parts of the body -- would they be noticeable? If a human was wearing a slightly weighted suit that was weighted throughout -- maybe they would just 'float' during take-off? If the tank holding the person was gradually put under pressure? -- would a person's internal pressure be more readily able to balance out blood flow internal to the body? Might be a way to transport water and humans into space if it was practical...otherwise, the space elevator seems the best approach.

Now if we can just convince weather and terrorists to leave it alone...

V
on November 19, 2008 5:10 AM

I agree moon base is the way to go~ it reduces the hazard of having to go through Eeath's atmosphere where all the dangerous and damages done. A moon base will reduce the riskiest bit and therefore same money and lifes and also extent spacecrafts' lifespan and reduce servicing cost.

I think Athena had been making too much of this space elevator idea~ It's not like when you are up there then you stay there. Even if you got up there, you still do not have the speed to stay in orbit and will eventually fall. some might argue it's going to be easier to lift off further out. True, but you will have to be there in the first place, which means using the same energy for getting on top of the elevator.

the refueling and cargo staging part will only be good if the elevator is build so high up that the speed of the top of the elevator spinning is the same as the orbit speed of the planet/moon. otherwise it will take enormous energy to maintain teir craft station relative to the elevator.

Also having something so long will leads to the question of what it should be build of and how is it going to prevent shaking and ocsillations.

Anonymous
on November 19, 2008 8:01 AM

Agreed.

I honestly can't understand what Louis Friedman and other responsible (or influential) officials running the show over at The Planetary Society are thinking, but I do know that their constituency membership is well-herded by whatever they declare to be "best". Most often they are spot on, as when it has come to critical grass-root support for endangered science missions. Nobody doubts they have often proven an effective countermeasure to congressional incompetence and stupidity.

BUT, this latest zinger seems almost antithetical to Carl Sagan's temperment. While he did eventually see a manned program aimed at Mars as a potentially desirable and beneficial endeavor, he was first and foremost a practical and pragmatic man fully cognizant of the realities of shifting public and political opinion, who understood that such a program would need to be approached in sensible steps that would ensure that the path to such a lofty goal could be sustainably managed and adhered to.

Six stupendously successful Apollo moon-landing missions were not performed out of the blue. They were painstakingly prefigured, step by arduous step, by Mercury and Gemini and check-out missions through Apollo 10, to see that every last and necessary capability was convincingly mastered BEFORE the first landing was ever attempted. The ONLY reason why Apollo 11 landed and returned safely was because of every previous manned flight that practiced the technology and skills necessary for that seminal event, essential and critical steps that were undertaken with patience and diligence BEFORE any attempt was made.

It MUST be the same with Mars. With ANY difficult goal. There is no other way.

Flying off the handle on attempting missions to Mars or NEOs (Near-Earth Objects, or asteroids that are in relative close proximity) as this latest Planetary Society manifest proposes not only introduces yet another rope in an already tangled and contentious and poitentially expensive tug-o-war none of us need, but can lead us directly to the potentially disasterous. You are quite right in suggesting that it is like begging for another quickie spectacle like Apollo, but even as close as Apollo 13 came, that program didn't result in any on-mission fatalities. Yet it was still terminated. Imagine what a disaster in deep space would do.

Now the Society is suggesting we invite the additional risk of putting the kibosh on the whole manned program (with fallout even on automated robot missions) just to be able to reach Mars (or even a NEO) before we've become proficient enough to make our own Moon a safely routine destination? The radiation hazard alone posed to these long-duration and remote missions (compared to the Moon) would represent an ever-present threat of total disaster.

What the Planetary Society SHOULD be advocating on top of its collective lungs is a patient and systematically progressive plan toward a sustainably steady, safe, reliable, robust and PERMANENT presence on the most convenient base camp Earthlings can ever have from which to mount their far more challenging assaults on the rest of the Solar System, and that is the MOON.

Like Sagan and Harrison Schmitt, I would like to see humans reach Mars too. Schmitt has properly, I believe, taken his stand. But the Sagan I knew also would never have endorsed such a preposterous long-shot, a long-shot that actually lessens the chances that we will ever get there.

By David Heigham
on November 19, 2008 4:36 PM

Among the many marvellous endowments of our planet is a sizeable body in close orbit where we can learn many of the skills that will be needed to spread mankind to other planets, solar and extra-solar. The time horizon for the future diffusion of mankind in this galactic neighborhood is likely to be measured in centuries and milennia. Aiming at Mars now would be trying to jump when we have just begun to learn to crawl.

Do we want to be a space faring species? If so the goal is self sufficiency in space.

The reason for making Mars the goal is BECAUSE it is harder than the Moon. The Moon will never become independent from the Earth. It's too close and too easy.

From my blog post today...

How many suborbital companies will go orbital? Nobody knows. The safe bet is not many if any at all. How many people think SpaceX will go beyond orbit? SpaceX reached for a much harder goal. As a result, they will have many more capabilities sooner than those that went the suborbital option. SpaceX is way ahead on the growth curve.

We need self sufficiency to guarantee sustainability. The Moon doesn't give us that.

red
on November 19, 2008 11:27 PM

We shouldn't overlook that the Planetary Society roadmap isn't just for a repeat of Apollo on Mars.

It starts with human missions to Lagrangian points to do things like service astronomy satellites Hubble-style. Their original pre-meeting, pre-roadmap announcement suggested that this would involve Bigelow-style modules and thus be a boost to commercial space. I don't see that in the current roadmap, but if it's hidden between the lines there, it would be a boost to commercial space and building space infrastructure. This is exactly the kind of thing the ESAS transportation system leaves out.

The other point with L-point missions they promoted is that they claim they return results much earlier. I don't know the details, but maybe their L-point architecture doesn't include Ares V, and maybe Ares 1 is replaceable with another rocket, too. I don't know. I do think the long time for results is a major drawback to the ESAS lunar plan. This incremental L-point step is exactly the type of steady gain in capability and experience beyond LEO a commenter here wanted.

With L-point capability in hand, the roadmap includes the possibility of returning to the Moon's surface or NEOs. The Moon isn't left out by any means. The roadmap has a strong lunar robotic effort for science scouting, engineering tests, and so on, so we can be in a good position to decide at that time what, if anything, we'd do on the Moon. I think it's a good idea to do these test before specifying a $100B+ lunar transportation architecture. This also gives the commercial side (GLXP teams, etc) time to demonstrate their capabilities and be in a better position to participate if we do go back to the Moon at that point (which probably isn't any later than the current lunar effort would be anyway).

Then NEOs, and only then Mars ... so the TPS roadmap certainly isn't a crash Apollo course straight to Mars.

I do think the TPS roadmap should have been stronger and more specific in support of commercial space as it was with international participation. Space infrastructure - i.e. what good stuff do we get in the process of getting to the exploration - is critical, and they didn't spell that out, either. Do they include fuel depots at the L-points? Questions like that are critical to the quality of the roadmap. I think how you get there is much more important than where you go, or in what order. If we're just launching government rockets and vehicles like Ares and Orion to these various destinations, it doesn't really matter where we go. It will be too slow, expensive, and feeble for any benefits worth the cost. If the plan is new government rockets, I say forget the whole effort to any of these destinations and stick with robotics.

Mike
on November 19, 2008 11:50 PM

Not to deny the possibility the resources of civilization might afford additional exploration of the Moon or Mars soon, it is also reasonable to ask that these resources be evaluated in terms of what is to be attained by aggressively continuing immediate exploration now.

Orbital resources are immediate and valuable and it is not sensible to think of curtailing them to save money.

Journeys to the Moon and Mars are hideously expensive and always return the same information - it's bad farmland, no air, no water, no life. They are the only places in the Solar System apart from Earth on which a person can stand alive for long without being vaporized or frozen.

No question exists, that if exploration is shelved for an indeterminate time, and space activity is simply limited by default to orbital satellites, it will eventually be resumed with more energy and resources than now exist.

If it were to take a hundred, three hundred or a thousand years to regain interest in the Moon or Mars, that would not doom anything or anybody. The whole realm of questions would be better resolved by then, by people generations hence.

zyh
on November 20, 2008 8:27 AM

The moon is moving away from Earth
Due to the tidal forces of weight [gravity] and the tangential component [vortex force] two parts, vortex force to the moon is of increasing angular momentum away from the Earth, this process of angular momentum conservation, therefore slowing down the Earth's rotation cycle. In recent years, some countries in the world after scientists and technical workers in-depth observation and research, found that the moon is gradually away from us, and will be increasingly dark. The United States and France scientists use astronauts landing on the moon in 1969 when the United States placed in the mirror on the moon to measure the results showed that in 28years to the distance between the Earth and the moon increased 1 m, The United States and France the two scientists is the use of accurate time measurement to measurement, the distance between the change, This method of pulsed laser projection, and then to the mirror reflection back on the ground detector, a return of about 2.5 seconds, Constantly measuring return by the time the changes on the distance that can change. Repeated measurements show that the earth and the moon because of the distance between the earth's surface tidal friction role annual increase of nearly 4 cm. Scientists believe the moon and under the influence of the Earth's gravitational tides produced, this tidal movement on the part of decentralized energy to the Earth's oceans, As a result of this energy - the loss of the campaign on the Moon system be affected, and this is moving away from the Earth's moon reasons. United States 2 geographers through Nautiloid Fossil study also found that the moon is moving away from Earth indeed. The two scientists observed several Nautilus existing fossil study found shellfish on the tree-ring wavy thread with the same performance, Thread at many points, though different width, but on every small wavy line growth in the 30 or so with the modern Lunar exactly the same as the number of days a month. Observed that the Nautilus, wavy lines of a long day, following a month long. Growth in this special two scientists to be greatly inspired, they observed the Nautilus ancient fossils surprised to find that the growth of every parrot the lines traced with the fossil's diminishing. And the age of the same line of Nautilus shell growth has to be fixed. Research shows that the modern Nautilus shell, the growth line is 30, the new generation of Oligocene Nautilus shell , the growth line is 26, Cretaceous Mesozoic is 22, 18 is Jurassic, Paleozoic Carboniferous is 15, Ordovician is nine, Concluded that 420 million years ago before the Ordovician, Paleozoic, and the moon around the Earth only nine days a week. Two geographers According to the Law of Universal Gravitation, such as physics theory, the moon and then calculated the distance between the Earth, Get a result, more than 400 million years ago, the Moon and the distance between the Earth is now only 43%. Scientists have also nearly 3000 to a record of pitting corrosion phenomenon on the calculation, of the findings fully consistent with the reasoning that the moon is gradually away from us.
using gravitational& vortex force the formula to calculate the moon from Earth:
Cos а ≈ 1
Me = 6 × 10 ^ 24kg; month - the distance r = 38.4 × 10 ^ 7M
Mgh = mv^2 / 2 ①
V = at ②
Moon average week: v-= 1 / π ∫ vsin ω td ω t = 2v / π ③
Angular velocity difference: q = 29/30 = 1-1/30
V-= 2at / π; ω = 1 / T
a = KGM ω/ r ^ 2 ④
Mg = GMm / r ^ 2 ⑤
111Daily the moon away from us: h = 2GK ^ 2Mq / π ^2 r ^ 2
= 2 × 6.67 × 10^-11 × 0.16 × 6 × 10 ^ 24 × 29 / [38.4 × 10 ^ 7] ^ 2 × 3.14 ^ 2× 30
= 8.51 × 10 ^- 5m
From a year: 8.51 × 365 × 10 ^- 5 = 0.031m
This is close the measured value
Reference: “ mysterious vortex force - gravity partner ”Books Author: Zhuyonghuan Publisher: 21st Century Publishing House - China 2005-3
With Cavendish torsion balance experiment measuring gravity tangential component "and" physical communications 2002.9 "

v
on November 20, 2008 9:13 AM

I simply don't understand why the moon is moving away instead of getting closer~ The tidal effect should have been dragging back the move and through turning its potentail energy into kinetic energy in moving the tides on earth~ that should have decrease the moon's potntial energy; i.e. the moon falling closer to the the energy well of earth's gravity. it just make no sense to be that if the moon is leaving us, does that mean it is gaining energy to leave its orbit???? and where is that energy coming from????

dan
on November 20, 2008 9:15 PM

For crying out loud, how hard is it, on a science blog, to get a comment system that works and doesn't return errors? New Scientist, rethink your blog software!!!!

DJ
on November 20, 2008 10:02 PM

Given Heinlein's famous saying ("once you're in low earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system"), why the obsession with two dusty rocks? It's like arguing between a turd sandwich and a turd burger, when there's a delicious beef burger just a few meters away.

Lots of discussion about the possibility of water on the moon and mars. I have a simple plan for finding water on the moon. Land, and invert your head such that your in-built optical facilities are oriented in a downward direction. The catch is that the moon has to be Callisto, or Ganymede, or Europa, which all have kilometers-thick crusts of pure ice.

Yes, I know there are significant problems with getting to Jupiter, and nuclear power sources will probably be required as solar panels are useless that far out. Surely these downsides are dwarfed by the upside of having limitless, free water that is easily accessible? Once you have limitless water, all sorts of things become possible. Habitation? Melt a hole in the ice. Radiation shielding? Melt a hole in the ice. Food? Hydroponics. Fuel? Crack water, or just use a nuclear-thermal drive, with water as reaction mass. Energy? Ship some uranium over and stick a nuclear reactor in the ice, which would also provide meltdown protection and radiation shielding. The problems of radiation from nuclear power can't possibly be worse than the problems of radiation from being in space in the first place. And the Moon is NOT the most convenient base camp; it's just the closest, in terms of flight time, but not necessarily in terms of energy to get to it.

Has anyone seriously looked at this? Am I missing something? Have I read "The Cassini division" one too many times? Discuss please.

..and, of course, as soon as I complain about the blog software not working, it starts working. Sorry.

Jon
on November 25, 2008 12:52 PM

I think our Moon should be the first thing to do . Its easier to get to and what we learn in the process of establishing a base on the Moon will in no doubt benefit us when we establish a base or mission to another moon like what DJ is saying and also Mars.

To go to Mars first or another moon would be quite time consuming wouldnt it ? We would need to send various data collecting satelittes to Mars,well maybe we have a good idea about Mars but definatly would need alot of prep for a space expedition to Jupiters moons or else where to find out how safe it is to establish an orbit, What the gravity pull of Jupiter will do etc on a large nuclear powered spaceship. At least with the Moon, NASA has a pretty good idea of what to expect from the Apollo program and i think personally they should go to our moon. Also the new Ares1 rocket will be able to lift big loads into space in 2020 so a moonbase on our moon could be done in our lifetime. I often think when looking up to the moon, i wonder as to why we suddenly left it. I think we should be doing alot more with our Moon. Especially with the Moon having this Helium 3. This could be manufactured up there and turned into a new fuel to power spaceships further off into space.

gaza
on November 25, 2008 7:59 PM

yes we should make moonbase and as much life as possible on it please.

NEOs would be a better target for ISRU - some are remnant comets coated in paraffins and similar heavy hydrocarbons. Send a mission to explore a dead comet and attempt to make propellant. Would help the Moon/Mars effort immensely to produce bulk propellant in-space. Bases need a better infrastructure than quick missions.

The most stable moon should be selected,
so we need a lot of probing there.
Far away from the gravity field of Jupier
makes it easier to land and take off.
So target sould be..perhaps Tros at Ganymedes Phrygia Sulcus area? A lot of ice and an impact crater.
That should be our long term goal (30a)?!

Why? What can you learn on a rocky moon that's applicable to a water moon? What can you learn on a dusty CO2-atmosphere desert that's useful to a zero-atmosphere water moon?
Everyone seems to be stuck in the psychology of dog-sled exploration of the South Pole, where you have a defined route and leave caches of food on the way. Saying that you need to go to the moon first (because it's closer), then mars (because it's slightly less close), then jupiter moons (because they are the furthest away) is a symptom of this psychology. I repeat: Once you are in LEO, you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system.

Going to the physically closest object in the sky first is not necessary, it is an artefact of human psychology. There is no need to do this. It's not like you are going to stop off at the moon to pick up muesli bars and scroggin on the way to Jupiter. They are not "way stations", and anything that can be learnt on the moon or mars can either be learnt in orbit, or is only useful for the moon and mars.

Philip Saunders
on December 4, 2008 2:51 PM

I find it staggering that NASA don't even have a set mandate for putting a man on Mars; they're whole Mars program revolves around finding "life" (ie a couple of stupid bacteria) on Mars and finding water.

Look- just accept it- the issue of life and water are negligable issues. We BRING life. We BRING water.

NASA should be focussing on the exploration and terraformation of Mars. The technology from terraforming could be useful in trying to figure out how to fix global warming on Earth. Mars shouldn't be treated as a scientific experiment, but as a great human endeavour requiring effort on every level of our society- scientific, economic, commercial etc. The space program needs to be a little bolder in it's outlook- it's been nearly 40 years since man has landed on the moon, and here we are still.

And I bet if one of those dinky toy probes discovered oil on Mars you'd suddenly generate A LOT of interest in the space program.

I think that a "space spectacular" is what is needed to get the general public interested in space again- and the people with the money to fund space. During the Apollo program degrees in science and physics rose tenfold. The problem with the current space program is simple- it is BORING, and simply doesn't reflect the pioneering nature of mankind. It's no wonder why it finds such difficulty in attaining funds from the government. Mars is more than just a planet, it is a symbol, a possible focus for mankind, and a new world in which we could forge a new economy, and (eventually) a profitable industry of Martian tourism and settlement. We already have the technology to reach Mars, all we need now is the guts.